ci: Add workflow files #1
Conversation
jedel1043
force-pushed
the
workflows
branch
3 times, most recently
from
56d52b3 to
5148f42
Compare
jedel1043
added
enhancement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! 
Just one small change I'm going to commit as a suggestion (missing newline at the end of the CI file), and one small non-blocking comments that I want your thoughts on. It ties into our larger discussion about standards that we should have before the year's end 😄
| @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ lint: lock | |||
| {{uv_run}} ruff format --check --diff {{all}} | |||
|
|
|||
| # Run static type checks | |||
| static *args: lock | |||
| type *args: lock | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[non-block/foresight]: should it be static or type? Some of our repositories use static while others use type. We're invoking a "static type" checker, so it's not immediately clear to me which one we should pick, but we should pick one.
Personally I'm leaning towards static since we're checking the static types and annotations we've added to the code that are known before "compiling" the Python code at runtime. type, at least to me, is slightly more vague since it's not immediate clear what is being checked (dynamic v.s. static types).
We can bikeshed on this next week though since it's a shorter pulse.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I took the name from the slurm-charms repo, but both static and type seem too vague IMO. I was considering changing it to typecheck which is a bit longer but easier to remember.
Opening a PR to test that the CI files work.